WarSclerotic

Syria says Turkey supports terrorism; death toll mounts as Aleppo battle rages.

Thursday, 02 August 2012

President Bashar al-Assad has not spoken in public since the bombing in Damascus killed four of his close security aides, although he has appeared in recorded clips on television. (Reuters)

inShare1

Ahmadinejad’s new call for Israel’s annihilation is his most anti-Semitic assault to date, says ADL | The Times of Israel.

Iranian president says ‘a horrendous Zionist clan has been ruling world affairs’ for 400 years. Abe Foxman: He no longer tries to hide the fact that by ‘Zionists’ he means not Israelis, but Jews

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, right, speaks during a parade commemorating National Army Day in April (photo credit: Vahid Salemi/AP)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s most recent call for the destruction of Israel represented his most comprehensively anti-Semitic speech ever, and is particularly “ominous” in light of Tehran’s continued quest for nuclear capability, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) warned Thursday.

Addressing a group of ambassadors from Islamic countries earlier this week, Ahmadinejad said the “annihilation of the Zionist regime” is not just a Palestinian issue, but the “key for solving the world problems,” and he slammed US leaders for “kissing the feet of the Zionists.”

August 17′s annual Quds Day — Jerusalem Day — “is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. “Any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world.”

“It has now been some 400 years that a horrendous Zionist clan has been ruling the major world affairs,” added Ahmadinejad, asserting that the Zionists are “behind the scenes of the major power circles, in political, media, monetary, and banking organizations in the world.”

The ADL noted in a statement Thursday that this speech differed from past anti-Semitic rants by the Iranian leader in that he no longer tried to hide the fact that by “Zionists” he does not mean Israelis, but Jews.

“In his bluntness, Ahmadinejad cuts through the false dichotomy of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism when he uses the term ‘Zionist’ to describe alleged Jewish control of the world for 400 years,” said ADL director Abraham Foxman.

Foxman called the speech “Ahmadinejad’s most comprehensive anti-Semitic speech yet,” and added that while the message itself has been heard before, Ahmadinejad’s words had “more ominous overtones and should be taken seriously as the Iranian regime continues on its march toward a nuclear weapon.”

Ahmadinejad also made reference to Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel this week, saying that the influence of the Zionist regime is so profound that “the presidential election hopefuls must go kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their victory in the election…. If the people’s votes really counts in those countries, why then a candidate must go to kiss the feet of a clandestine Zionist minority, sacrificing the entire prestige, chanted mottoes, and values of their system before the Zionists, and justifying the entire criminal acts of that regime?”

Foxman said that Ahmadinejad’s remarks were “filled with anti-Semitism and expressions of contempt for Israel and its leaders.” He called them the “hallmark of the hate-filled and irrational nature of the Iranian regime.”

Israeli strike would only delay Iran’s nuclear program by two years – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Assessment holds that Iran’s nuclear program would technically be set back by only a year, but it would likely take Iran another year on top of that to overcome side effects of the strike that would cause additional delays.

By Amos Harel

An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would delay its manufacture of nuclear weapons by no more than two years, according to the prevailing assessment.

This assessment holds that Iran’s nuclear program would technically be set back by only a year. But it would likely take Iran another year on top of that to overcome side effects of the strike that would cause additional delays.

The gap between Israel’s military capabilities and those of the United States, as well as the gap between the countries’ positions on the Iranian issue, were the focus of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s visit here this week. But even though Israeli leaders have insisted, both publicly and privately, that an attack on Iran is necessary, it seems that two factors are reducing the likelihood of an Israeli strike before the U.S. presidential election in November.

The first is the administration’s vehement opposition to such a strike at this time, in part because it might hurt President Barack Obama’s reelection bid by sending oil prices higher. The other is the opposition of Israel’s defense establishment: The top brass in both the Israel Defense Forces and the Mossad advise against attacking Iran before the elections, mainly out of fear that it would damage Israel’s strategic relationship with the United States.

Supporters of an attack – mainly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak – fear that opponents are adopting a policy of “it’s too soon, it’s too soon … oops, it’s too late.” Or in other words, that the effort to postpone a strike by another three months is really meant to delay it until Israel can no longer attack at all. Once that happens, they fear, the international community would move to a policy of containing Iran – the very policy Obama promised not to adopt in his speech to the AIPAC conference in March.

Netanyahu and Barak argue that the longer a strike is delayed, the less effective it will be in delaying Iran’s attainment of nuclear capability. Even now, some of what could have been achieved two years ago has become harder or even impossible, and if Israel waits too long, an attack would no longer accomplish anything.

The Americans counter that if necessary, they can wage an incomparably more effective attack – but it isn’t necessary yet. And in any case, the prevailing assessment is that an Israeli strike would set Iran’s nuclear program back by a year or two at most.

There are, of course, some who think Netanyahu and Barak are merely waging psychological warfare – by repeatedly threatening to attack, they are spurring Europe and America to ratchet up sanctions on Iran, which in turn might drive the ayatollahs to accept a compromise that would restrain their nuclear development. Moreover, this theory goes, the focus on Iran frees Israel from international pressure over the Palestinian issue, while also diverting Israelis’ attention from economic and social grievances.

This theory can’t be rejected out of hand. Barak, in particular, is tough to decipher. As the late Finance Minister Simcha Erlich once told an interviewer, “I don’t say what I mean and I don’t mean what I say.” It’s often hard to follow the logic of Barak’s moves in the strategic billiards game he is playing on behalf of all of us.

But on the other hand, Barak has never been as clear and resolute as he now seems to be on the Iranian issue. He speaks as if out of a deep inner conviction.

Moreover, historic examples of other prime ministers, from David Ben-Gurion to Menachem Begin, are being trotted out regularly, and the message is clear: Only far-sighted leaders understand the magnitude of the danger and act accordingly, despite the obstacles put in their way by short-sighted colleagues. After all, Barak claims, experts also expected the Israeli strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 to set that country’s nuclear development back by only two years, but in the end, Iraq never managed to rebuild its nuclear weapons program.

And third, most defense professionals believe Netanyahu and Barak are serious – as do many in the media.

Yesterday, this debate even made the front page of The New York Times: The paper quoted former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy saying that if he were an Iranian, he’d be “very fearful of the next 12 weeks,” but also quoted Obama administration officials saying they believe Israel will accede to American urgings to delay an attack until at least early next year.

The trouble, however, is that this entire drama is also being watched by the Iranians. And based on the hard line they have taken in their negotiations with the Western powers over the last few months, in which they have not retreated by so much as a millimeter or displayed any willingness to compromise, it seems that Tehran, at least, doesn’t believe Israel will attack in the next few months.

Iran and World Powers to Hold More Nuclear Talks – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

Catherine Ashton

Reuters

Chief negotiators for the EU and Iran agreed on Thursday to hold more talks about Tehran’s nuclear work, Reuters reported, but the European Union gave no sign progress was imminent in the dispute.

Six world powers, represented by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, have sought to persuade Iran to scale back its nuclear program through intensifying economic sanctions and diplomacy.

They have failed to reach a breakthrough in three rounds of talks since April. Neither side has been willing to break off talks because of concerns, in part, that this could lead to a new war in the Middle East if Israel attacked Iran.

“I … have explored diplomatic ways to resolve international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program,” Ashton said in a statement quoted by Reuters, after a phone conversation with Iran’s chief negotiator Saeed Jalili.

“I impressed the need for Iran now to address the issues we have raised in order to build confidence. I proposed, and Dr. Jalili agreed, that we talk again after further reflection at the end of the month,” she added.

In June, talks in Moscow between Iran and the six – the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain – hit an impasse.

At the core of the discussions are Iranian efforts to enrich uranium to 20 percent fissile purity, an advance that would bring it close to acquiring weapons-grade material.

World powers are demanding that Tehran abandon such production, ship stockpiles out of the country and close an underground facility where high-grade enrichment takes place. Tehran has refused to meet the demands unless economic sanctions are lifted.

Last month, Iran accused the world powers of dragging their feet in negotiations over its nuclear activities.

Foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast asserted that if the powers ignored Iran’s nuclear “rights” and failed to bargain on equal terms, the negotiations could lead to an “impasse.”

“All that can reinforce the idea that there is a desire to drag out the negotiations or prevent their success,” he said, adding that “illogical, irresponsible” Western sanctions “amount to a hostile act against Iran and its national interests.”

Sanctions pressure increased this week when the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed a new package of sanctions against Iran that aims to punish banks, insurance companies and shippers that help Tehran sell its oil.

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama announced U.S. sanctions against foreign banks that help Iran sell its oil, specifically citing China’s Bank of Kunlun and an Iraqi bank.

It won’t work without the Americans – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Only US military can launch ongoing operation capable of halting Iran’s nuclear program

Eitan Ben-Eliyahu

It is becoming increasingly clear that the sanctions won’t be enough to cause the Iranian government to halt its nuclear program. No one can predict exactly when or how Iran will wave the white flag and stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

While the sanctions are stifling the Iranian economy, they are simply not enough the defeat the Iranians. The western countries that are imposing the sanctions are in dire economic straits and are focusing on their domestic problems. The Iranian nuclear program is regarded as a major threat, but the West considers it a future threat, and for now these countries’ internal problems are taking precedence over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The UShas the means to launch an efficient military strike. They have intelligence, stealth bombers that cannot be detected by radars, ballistic and cruise missiles, bunker buster bombs, as well as electronic warfare and aerial refueling capabilities. The Americans can surround Iran with army forces, they have airfields and aircraft carriers from which reinforcements can be scrambled at a moment’s notice, and, in general, their level of preparedness is very high.

US Navy Aircraft Carrier in the Strait of Hormuz. (Photo: EPA)

In the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, it was determined in advance that the destruction will be achieved with a short, pinpoint surprise attack. The expectation was that the strike would set the Iraqi nuclear program several years back – or even stop it entirely. In Iran’s case, there are no plans for a surprise, pinpoint attack, but for an ongoing type of operation in which the damage will be inflicted gradually. The US possesses the necessary military staying power to carry out such an operation over the course of several days, and even weeks, assuming the political echelon would support it.

Ground forces will not be required. The mission is simple: Mounting destruction and attrition until the nuclear program is halted. The US has the diplomatic standing and the means to accompany such an operation with direct or indirect negotiations. This was Kennedy’s modus operandi during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which began on October 15, 1962 and ended just 13 days later. The overt preparations for a military operation and the deployment of forces, which accompanied the naval blockade of Cuba, deterred the Soviets and drew the attention of the entire world, which feared the worst.

Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel. Curbing this threat requires a combination of harsh sanctions, an ongoing military campaign and diplomacy. Iran’s response will surely include Israel, meaning that the Jewish state will be a part of this campaign in any case. Therefore, the solution calls for cooperation between Israel and the US. Otherwise, we will be forced to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Major General (res.) Eitan Ben-Eliyahu is a former commander of the Israeli Air Force

‘Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic tira… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Annan quits as international Syria mediator: U.N. – Yahoo! News.

Nasrallah Relocating to Iran? – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

IDF soldier looks at portrait of Nasrallah

Flash 90

Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has instructed the head of Iranian proxy Hizbullah to leave Lebanon and move to Iran if Syria’s Bashar Assad falls from power, a Kuwaiti newspaper reports.

The paper, A Siasa, explains that the Iranian leadership has been weighing two possible courses of action, in case Iran’s protégé and partner Assad is toppled.

The first option includes supplying Hizbullah with state-of-the-art heavy weapons and enlarging the number of Iranian soldiers in Lebanon. This option would have strengthened the Iranian presence in Lebanon as compensation for the loss of Iran’s Syrian ally.

The second option is to evacuate all Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers from southern Lebanon and Beirut, and to relocate Nasrallah and other senior commanders from Beirut to Tehran, for fear they would be assassinated if Assad’s regime falls.

A Siasa says Iran has apparently chosen the second option.

The newspaper also says all Iranian military barracks in Syria have been moved to Lebanon. It says that Iranian soldiers who carry out operations in Syria pass into Syria from Lebanon’s Bak’a valley, and then return to Lebanon when the assignments are over. The area they use for rest and regrouping is known as Hizbullah Land, and the Lebanon Army cannot enter it without coordinating a visit with Hizbullah.

Ahmadinejad calls for annihilati… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Israel Hayom | ‘Missiles on Tel Aviv will unleash unprecedented Israeli response’.